Tougher rivals: Fed or Pete?

[clout]

I'm sure this thread has been done before, but I checked and I didn't see a thread like this since a few years to my surprise. So anyways, Roger Federer and Pete Sampras are two of the greatest champs this league has ever seen. They played in eras that were quite different from one another, and they had to go through several different players to reach the summits of their generation. In your honest opinions, who do you guys think had to go through tougher rivals to accomplish their accolades.

 

[kevaninho]

I would say Pete had to beat more depth, as the different surfaces especially came into play.
But Fed had 2 of the greatest players ever to compete as his opposition, just not much else after that.
Pete for me.

 

[nikdom]

I would say Pete had to beat more depth, as the different surfaces especially came into play.
But Fed had 2 of the greatest players ever to compete as his opposition, just not much else after that.
Pete for me.

What different surfaces? Pete was never a factor on clay.

 

[BeatlesFan]

Pete never had a tier one ATG in his path to any slam final. He came of age at the end of the Lendl-Mac era and he was 11-12 years younger than them. His only generational rival was Andre, whom he regularly beat in the big matches. Safin came along at the tail end of Pete's career but he's a two-slam winner only.

Roger has had two undisputed ATG's in his path, both of whom are 5-6 years younger: Nadal and Djokovic.

There's no comparison who had the tougher rivals, it's not even worth discussing. The answer is Federer by a huge margin.

 

[Red Rick]

Sampras. He had to play Federer once.

 

[EloQuent]

Sampras. He had to play Federer once.

Indisputable evidence.

 

[EloQuent]

The only reason Federer's rivals are considered weak is because he beat them so thoroughly (except other B4).

 

[True Fanerer]

 

[tennisaddict]

I would say Pete had to beat more depth, as the different surfaces especially came into play.
But Fed had 2 of the greatest players ever to compete as his opposition, just not much else after that.
Pete for me.

Why would one need something after that ?

 

[fedtennisphan]

I'm sure this thread has been done before, but I checked and I didn't see a thread like this since a few years to my surprise. So anyways, Roger Federer and Pete Sampras are two of the greatest champs this league has ever seen. They played in eras that were quite different from one another, and they had to go through several different players to reach the summits of their generation. In your honest opinions, who do you guys think had to go through tougher rivals to accomplish their accolades.

Nah! This topic hasn’t been done before. Has something happened recently in the past year causing numerous threads to be created to discredit Federer both professionally and personally?

 

[clout]

Nah! This topic hasn’t been done before. Has something happened recently in the past year causing numerous threads to be created to discredit Federer both professionally and personally?

Well I searched for this thread just in case it was done recently, but the most recent one I found was in like 2010 and a lot's changed since then so I thought I might as well make a thread like this just for the fun of a discussion and NOT to discredit anyone of their accomplishments.

 

[fedtennisphan]

I would say Pete had to beat more depth, as the different surfaces especially came into play.
But Fed had 2 of the greatest players ever to compete as his opposition, just not much else after that.
Pete for me.

Fixed: I’m picking Sampras because Federer may soon distance himself from both my two pawns and I’m growing desperate everyday.

 

[fedtennisphan]

Well I searched for this thread just in case it was done recently, but the most recent one I found was in like 2010 and a lot's changed since then so I thought I might as well make a thread like this just for the fun of a discussion and NOT to discredit anyone of their accomplishments.

The topic has been before just in different ways. “This topic is being done for fun and not to discredit any one of their accomplishments”. You really don’t believe that do you?

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Fed due to a) Claydal; b) extra longevity meaning he put himself on the court against the younger ATGs (esp. Djokovic) so many times since 2011, whereas Pete lost to less than top competition in 2001-02 as he was struggling, then quit shortly after his 31st birthday on the high note of winning the USO.

 

[Pheasant]

This is a good question. What doesn't look good for Pete is his record against some of Fed's main rivals.

For example:

27-30 year old Sampras was only 4-5 vs a 17-21 year old Hewitt. 2 of Hewitt's losses were when he was a teenager and was ranked outside the top 40. Once Hewitt was ranked in the top 20, he was 5-2 vs Sampras. And it wasn't as though Sampras was THAT old. Sampras was 30 when he played his last match against Hewitt.

Also, Safin was 4-3 vs Sampras. One of Sampras' wins was when the 60th ranked Safin was only 17 years old.

And lastly, Sampras was 1-2 vs Roddick. And Roddick had just turned 20 the last time that he faced Pete. Andy was ranked outside the top 10 each time they faced off.

I watched Safin and Hewitt absolutely destroy Sampras in the US Open final. Tennis at that time seemed to hit new heights. That is, until Federer figured the game out.

And of course, Federer would later play over 80 matches against Djokovic and Nadal, two players that are upgraded versions of Hewitt.

With that being said, I'd say that Federer faced slightly tougher competition. However, his competition was nowhere near as tough as the 1980's.

 

[mike danny]

There is a reason this thread hasn't been done recently: the answer is obvious.

Federer has had by far the toughest rivals and they are both much younger than him. Sampras never had someone on the level of Djokovic, let alone Nadal.

 

[sarmpas]

The h2h scores against their respective rivals shows clearly who had a tougher time.

 

[Russeljones]

Two words: surface specialiststs.

 

[KINGROGER]

Sampras literally had no one once Agassi fell off the map. Then Fed’s generation came along and owned him (Hewitt, Safin)

 

[clout]

Damn Fed's dominating this poll...Poor Pete.

 

[Agassifan]

Damn Fed's is dominating this poll...Poor Pete.

Fed dominates Pete in every aspect of Tennis. Including message boards.

 

[Chadillac]

I like pete, but he avoided agassi on his off surfaces. You could say the same about nadal.

 

[Zetty]

Fed had the Muz too, a three time slam champion, 2 OGs, 14 masters, WTF winner that has a very competitive H2H with him. Other than Agassi, who really from Sampras's era even has better credentials than even Murray? Much less Nadal and Djokovic who are as good as Sampras himself.

 

[metsman]

I like pete, but he avoided agassi on his off surfaces. You could say the same about nadal.

Only times he avoided Agassi at AO was after 2001 and 2003 when he was past his prime and retired. That's not really avoiding. Also Agassi did absolutely 0 at the French during most of Sampras' prime and Sampras did face him in 92. Not really avoiding.

 

[SinjinCooper]

What different surfaces? Pete was never a factor on clay.

Federer has one clay court slam. Pete has zero.

Pete has twelve fast court slams. Federer has zero.

 

[KINGROGER]

Federer has one clay court slam. Pete has zero.

Pete has twelve fast court slams. Federer has zero.

What year did USO change from fast to medium fast then? 04-08 USO looked pretty quick to me.

 

[Bender]

Sampras. He had to play Federer once.

Big if true

 

[EloQuent]

Federer has one clay court slam

Plus 4 finals. If he hadn't faced Rafa, he'd have 5 French Opens (and 25 Slams overall).

Sampras never made the finals in RG. His opponents weren't what kept him back.

 

[clout]

What year did USO change from fast to medium fast then? 04-08 USO looked pretty quick to me.

USO courts were always quite fast, it's not the fastest in the world, but its certainly faster than AO (other than 2017), IW and Miami. It's slower than Cincy and Shanghai, and around the same as Canada.

 

[Bobby Jr]

I would say Pete had to beat more depth, as the different surfaces especially came into play.

I think you mean Pete had less depth as the different surfaces came into play.

When grass played like grass it basically ruled out far more people from ever having a chance of winning it. i.e easier for those adept to playing on grass to do well there. When grass plays like other surfaces, especially in the 2nd week, it means clay bunnies and non attack-minded players have more of a chance, i.e. more players are potentially competitive.

 

[chjtennis]

According to Agassi, it's Federer.

http://www.livemint.com/Sports/0rfI...etter-than-Pete-Sampras-Yes-says-Andre-A.html


Also the interview with the humble Chanpion.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/andre-agassi-roger-federer-pete-sampras_n_3984529

 

[ghostofMecir]

According to Agassi, it's Federer.

http://www.livemint.com/Sports/0rfI...etter-than-Pete-Sampras-Yes-says-Andre-A.html

Frankly, it’s obvious to anyone with an above room temperature IQ.

Pete’s most matches played against:

Andre—33

Most matches played against the next generation: Kafelnikov (13) and Thomas Enqvist (11).

Federer’s most matches played against:

Djokovic—45
Nadal—38

Both of these players are from the generation AFTER Federer’s and that makes Federer’s career that much more remarkable,

23 of these matches were on Federer’s “weakest”surface, clay.

It’s Federer and it’s not really all that close.

 

[metsman]

What year did USO change from fast to medium fast then? 04-08 USO looked pretty quick to me.

05 with the surface change.

 

[chjtennis]

Frankly, it’s obvious to anyone with an above room temperature IQ.

Pete’s most matches played against:

Andre—33

Most matches played against the next generation: Kafeknikov (13) and Tnimas Enqvist (11).

Federer’s most matches played against:

Djokovic—45
Nadal—38

Both of these players are from the generation AFTER Federer’s.

23 of these matches were on Federer’s “weakest”surface, clay.

A lot of those Nadal matches were on clay which was basically the surface Nadal built his career around.

As for Djokovic, Federer lost a lot of matches during his decline and injury period which coincided Djokovic's peak. Let's see how Federer does against Djokovic this year.

 

[axlrose]

05 with the surface change.

2003.

According to USTA announcement.

 

[merlinpinpin]

I guess their competition would have been roughly the same... without both Nadal and Djokovic. With the two of them added to the mix, though, they're not even in the same universe. Sampras is the only ATG who faced a grand total of *zero* other ATG's during his best years, and had only one to contend with during his whole career (and said ATG, Agassi, won most of his titles when Sampras started declining/after he was done). Federer has two who are 5/6 years younger than him, plus Murray (also 6 years younger than Fed), whose results up till now are about the same as what Agassi's were before Sampras' ranking took a plunge.

Next up: "Who is the best claycourter? Sampras? Nadal? Even?" Can't wait for all the "Even because of their respective competition" answers...

 

[ForumMember]

Pete never had a tier one ATG in his path to any slam final. He came of age at the end of the Lendl-Mac era and he was 11-12 years younger than them. His only generational rival was Andre, whom he regularly beat in the big matches. Safin came along at the tail end of Pete's career but he's a two-slam winner only.

Roger has had two undisputed ATG's in his path, both of whom are 5-6 years younger: Nadal and Djokovic.

There's no comparison who had the tougher rivals, it's not even worth discussing. The answer is Federer by a huge margin.

How many Grand slams Federer won defeating these two ATGs once they had attained ATG-hood?

 

[zep]

On paper it's Federer but it becomes interesting when you consider the fact that his record against Nadal and Djokovic in slams is not that great. I think it's 9-18.

 

[KINGROGER]

05 with the surface change.

2003.

According to USTA announcement.

Hmm any sources? It seems to me that poster was trolling.

USO to me seemed a lot slower in recent years than it did back in 04-09.

 

[zep]

Hmm any sources? It seems to me that poster was trolling.

USO to me seemed a lot slower in recent years than it did back in 04-09.

For its part, the U.S.T.A. says its DecoTurf surface hasn’t changed since the decision was made in 2003 to slow the courts a little. It’s the same mixture, resurfaced at the same time as last year, said Tim Curry, the director of corporate communications for the U.S.T.A. “We like the court speed the way it is now,” he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/08/sports/tennis/us-open-speed-bumps-on-a-hardcourt.html

 

[Deon Sanders]

Federer has one clay court slam. Pete has zero.

Pete has twelve fast court slams. Federer has zero.

Federer has 8 Wimbledon titles and no else has 8 Wimbledon titles

Stands alone as the best fastest court player in world history

Pete fans in ruins

 

[zep]

A lot of those Nadal matches were on clay which was basically the surface Nadal built his career around.

As for Djokovic, Federer lost a lot of matches during his decline and injury period which coincided Djokovic's peak. Let's see how Federer does against Djokovic this year.

Before 2017 Nadal had a 8-2 head to head against Federer on outdoor hard courts. 2017 is the only year when Federer truly had an upper hand over Nadal. Before that, the only surface where Federer had a clear upper hand was indoor hard.

 

[NatF]

On paper it's Federer but it becomes interesting when you consider the fact that his record against Nadal and Djokovic in slams is not that great. I think it's 9-18.

Why does losing to your rivals mean you had worse competition? Surely it would be the reverse...

 

[zagor]

It's pretty close, I do feel Sampras era had more depth and varied conditions/playing styles which (along with 16th seeding system) made it much harder for any player to be as madly consistent as big 4 were in this era.

If Nadal and Novak were the same age as Fed I would have given the nod to Sampras competition wise. However, them being 5-6 years younger coupled with Fed's great longevity is what gives him the edge in this instance.

 

[zagor]

How many Grand slams Federer won defeating these two ATGs once they had attained ATG-hood?

If we presume Nadal attained ATG-hood in 2010 and Novak in 2011 then twice, 2012 Wimbledon and 2017 AO. Same as the total number of slams Sampras won at the same age (2000-2002).

At the same age period (2015-2017) Nadal is 1-12 combined against his main rivals. Had a 0-7 streak against peak Novak and 0-4 against 36 year old Fed.

 

[zagor]

Why does losing to your rivals mean you had worse competition? Surely it would be the reverse...

It could just mean Sampras held down his main rivals more which made them look worse as a consequence. 1995 USO F was a big mental blow for Agassi for example.

I'd argue however that it's easier to do so when the rivals are your peers instead of 5 year younger and that Agassi never had the mental fortitude and dedication of Nadal or Novak.

 

[NatF]

It could just mean Sampras held down his main rivals more which made them look worse as a consequence. 1995 USO F was a big mental blow for Agassi for example.

I'd argue however that it's easier to do so when the rivals are your peers instead of 5 year younger and that Agassi never had the mental fortitude and dedication of Nadal or Novak.

Agassi held himself down really IMO. Sampras and any of the Big 3 would have come back from that loss at the USO in 1995. Most of Andre's losing efforts to Pete at the USO were a little lackluster as well, on paper their 1995 final should have been their best but their 2001 match was far better.

Federer did in fact hold down numerous rivals from his own generation, it goes without saying that holding down younger rivals is harder because you're also competing with father time.

There's a prevailing view on here that your rivals are only the players you beat and not also who you lose to - which is moronic. Sampras had the harder early career, I'd give Federer the edge in their mid-late 20's onwards.

 

[KINGROGER]

For its part, the U.S.T.A. says its DecoTurf surface hasn’t changed since the decision was made in 2003 to slow the courts a little. It’s the same mixture, resurfaced at the same time as last year, said Tim Curry, the director of corporate communications for the U.S.T.A. “We like the court speed the way it is now,” he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/08/sports/tennis/us-open-speed-bumps-on-a-hardcourt.html

I agree with Federer.

 

[axlrose]

Hmm any sources? It seems to me that poster was trolling.

USO to me seemed a lot slower in recent years than it did back in 04-09.

Me trolling? Of course not.

In theory, the USTA hasn't changed anything since 2003. However, speed depends on many factors: weather, balls, construction tolerances...

 

[zagor]

Agassi held himself down really IMO. Sampras and any of the Big 3 would have come back from that loss at the USO in 1995. Most of Andre's losing efforts to Pete at the USO were a little lackluster as well, on paper their 1995 final should have been their best but their 2001 match was far better.

Agassi's problem is that he never really had a prime IMO, his peak tennis ability and athleticism didn't coincide with the dedication and focus he had from 1999 onwards. It's hard to mount a challenge to someone like Sampras when you're battling inner turmoil.

He definitely should have done better against Pete at USO, he was a favourite on paper in nearly all of their encounters there but never even pushed it to a 5.

Federer did in fact hold down numerous rivals from his own generation, it goes without saying that holding down younger rivals is harder because you're also competing with father time.

That should be a self-evident but I've found that on TW when it comes to Fed, it isn't. Aside from his own fans, most other posters act like Fed doesn't age or get injured so it's something you have to argue.

There's a prevailing view on here that your rivals are only the players you beat and not also who you lose to - which is moronic. Sampras had the harder early career, I'd give Federer the edge in their mid-late 20's onwards.

Agree.